(By email) Our Ref: MGLA150519-2647 26 July 2019 Dear Thank you for your further refined request for information which the GLA received on 14 May 2019. Your request has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000. You asked for a list of 69 priority responses (excluding any parties which have not responded to the advertising ban section of the consultation). Please find attached the information within scope of your request. 22 of the companies within scope of your request responded online and their responses have been placed into a spreadsheet at the end of this response. A detailed summary of the consultation response, including the GLA's responses to issues raised and subsequent changes made to the final strategy following the feedback from the consultation responses we received is available online. Here is the link to the consultation report: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/appendix_b_- _consultation_report_final_09.01.19.pdf In terms of the responses we received during the consultation process. Of the 149 responses from stakeholder organisations, 68% (101) were in favour of an advertising ban, 17% (26) opposed and 15% (22) did not expressing a view on this element of the draft LFS. In addition, a total of 592 emails and letters were received by members of the public relating to the proposed ban on advertising junk food on the TfL estate, of which 98% were supportive of a ban. Please note that employee details are exempt from disclosure under s.40 (Personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act. This information could potentially identify specific employees and as such constitutes as personal data which is defined by Article 4(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual. It is considered that disclosure of this information would contravene the first data protection principle under Article 5(1) of GDPR which states that Personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. A small amount of information within 5 of the consultation responses is being withheld from disclosure section 43 (2) (Commercial interests) of the FOIA. This provides that information can be withheld from release if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person. A commercial interest relates to a person’s ability to participate competitively in a commercial activity and in this instance, relates to commercially sensitive contractual information regarding revenue and occupancy rates. Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the ability of third parties in their negotiation of future commercial opportunities. Section 43(2) constitutes a qualified exemption from our duty to disclose information under the FOIA and consideration must be given as to whether the public interest favouring disclosure of the information covered by this exemption outweighs the public interest considerations favouring maintaining the exemption and withholding the information. In this instance we regard it not to be in the public interest to release information that would be likely to be detrimental to commercial activities, for example, if obtained by competitors and in relation to management of advertising rights. If you have any further questions relating to this matter, please contact me, quoting the reference at the top of this letter. Yours sincerely Information Governance Officer If you are unhappy with the way the GLA has handled your request, you may complain using the GLA’s FOI complaints and internal review procedure, available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/governance-and-spending/sharing-our- information/freedom-information Advertising Association Response Draft London Food Strategy Introduction 1. The Advertising Association brings together the whole of the advertising and marketing communications industry, including the advertisers, the agencies and the media owners. The advertising industry supports a responsible and proportionate framework of rules, and regularly reviews these to ensure they are up to date and in line with evidence. 2. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Mayor of London’s Draft Food Strategy. We recognise the wider societal issues caused by obesity and commend the Mayor’s attempts to ensure access to affordable healthy food. We also support, in particular, the responses from Outsmart, the IPA, the FDF, the BSDA, ISBA, and CAP. Executive Summary 3. We do not agree with the proposed ‘unhealthy’ food and drink advertising ban on the Transport for London (TfL) network. We do not agree that there is a need for further advertising restrictions, we question the use of the phrase “unhealthy” to describe food and drink products to be restricted, and we believe that a full economic impact assessment should be carried out. Restrictions 4. We do not believe there is any need for further advertising restrictions. The current advertising rules are proportionate, evidence-based and already apply across all media, including the TfL estate. 5. The consultation document asserts that “advertising of foods that are unhealthy is often unregulated and widespread during family TV viewing times, through the internet and on the streets”. This is incorrect and misleading, as the advertising in all of those situations is regulated through the BCAP and CAP Codes.1 Strict, clear rules apply to the advertising of food and drink products high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) in all the media listed in the consultation document and these rules are actively enforced by the ASA2. 6. Academic research has also failed to establish a direct link between food marketing and obesity, hence we are not convinced by the necessity and proportionality of further restrictions. Definition of foods 7. We question the use of “not healthy” and “unhealthy” throughout the consultation document. The document requests views on the proposed ban across the Transport for London estate of advertising of food and drink that is “not healthy” and explains “healthy as defined under the Food Standards Agency Nutrient Profiling Model”. However, the guidance on the Nutrient Profiling Model (“NPM”) to which the document provides a link, makes clear that the purpose of the NPM is to help classify foods and drinks which exceed a particular score as “less healthy”, not ”healthy” or “unhealthy” as the consultation suggests. 8. The NPM is simply not an appropriate mechanism for determining whether food and drink products are “healthy” or “unhealthy”. Food categorised as HFSS by the NPM clearly includes products which 1 The rules on food and soft drink advertising to children are set out in sections 13.9-13.15 of the BCAP Code (for broadcast advertisements) and in sections 15.11-15.18 of the CAP Code (for all non-broadcast marketing communications). 2 The ASA investigates alleged violations of the BCAP and CAP Codes and publishes its rulings on a weekly basis. See the rulings of 4th July 2018 for example, where 5 rulings related to the advertising of HFSS products to children. have a role to play in a balanced diet. In fact, some products which are mentioned in Government advice as part of a balanced diet to be included as part of a consumer’s 5 a day would be categorised as HFSS under the NPM and, if the proposed restrictions go ahead, not be able to be advertised. 9. Evidence also indicates that some of the products that the document deems as “healthy” would in fact be classed as HFSS when using the NPM. Our concerns are more pertinent while the NPM is being reviewed, insofar as it is currently unclear which further products would be classified as HFSS under the new model and therefore included within any proposed advertising restrictions. Commercial impact 10. We also are concerned that the unintended commercial consequences for TfL’s revenue has not been considered in the consultation document and urge that an impact assessment is carried out. Advertising revenue across the UK supports the delivery of a number of products and services, including transport such as London’s network. It will be important to be clear what impact this proposal will have on TfL and its ability to provide a level of service that Londoners demand, given significant other pressures it faces from, for example, declining passenger numbers. About the Advertising Association and UK advertising 11. The Advertising Association promotes the role, rights and responsibilities of advertising and its impact on individuals, the economy and society. We bring together companies that advertise, their agencies, the media and relevant trade associations to combine strengths and seek consensus on the issues that affect them. 12. Every £1 spent on advertising generates £6 to UK GDP and so advertising is a driver of economic growth, generating more than £120bn per year for GDP, and also supports the wider creative industries. Nearly one million jobs in communities right across the country are supported by advertising services. The UK is a world-class hub for advertising, with the latest available figures also showing exports of British ad services reached a record high of £5.8bn in 2016. 13. The current rules for advertising in the UK are among the strictest in the world. The rules are comprehensive and apply across all forms of media, whether on TV, online, on the street or on public transport. Restrictions prevent any advertisement for HFSS products being targeted at children under 16 through any medium, not just children’s channels. As children’s media consumption habits have changed, so have the rules. In July 2017, the restrictions were extended to cover non-broadcast media, online, social media, advergames and TV-like content such as video-sharing platforms, if directed at children or in media with a significant audience of under 16s (over 25% of the audience).